Canon 200 2.8L

Can everyone post their thoughts feelings and/or pictures taken with this lens. I am wanting to know about IQ focus and sorts will be used for High School sports.

Ile second that,I also want this lens.

It's black, fast, sharp, and relatively light. Really comes down to whether you want a prime or a zoom. I gave it a hard look, but opted for the 70-200 f4 for the convenience of a zoom.

The 200 has very fast and accurate AF. Sharper than any of the 70-200 zooms. I have never had an issue with the prime vs zoom as my feest work quite well.

rklepper wrote in post #2150834
The 200 has very fast and accurate AF. Sharper than any of the 70-200 zooms. I have never had an issue with the prime vs zoom as my feest work quite well.

You can't always move around to frame your shots, especially not for sports, and even if you could, "zooming with your feet" does less for you on longer focal lenghts than it does on wide-angles.

I have both the 200/2.8 and the 70-200/2.8 and while the zoom isn't quite as sharp as the prime it is really very much more useful for sports in my opinion. The 200 prime is sometimes an awkward length, too long for the near action and too short for the other end of the field.

It's a great lens if 200mm is right for you, I just don't like a fixed 200mm all that much.

Well the story behind this is that me and a friend are on my high school yearbook staff and recently we have been quite ticked at the company to produce our books, Taylor Publishing. Our school has been with them for about 25 years and its always Black and White. So I called my old school which was all color and it cost about 16 thousand less. So we made a list including - 15 copys of adobe Indesign CS2, 15 copies of Photoshop CS2, two rebel XTi's, a 17-85 IS, 2 nifty's, 70-200 F4. Afterwards and searched Adorama on telephoto lens and this one popped out to ask as another

I have this lens and love it. It's sharp, contrasty and does what I want it to do. Yes, I have to zoom with my feet, but that's all part of the deal with primes. I'll post a photo from this lens when my computer finishes a batch process it started a few minutes ago.

Mark

It's simply one of the best lenses there is, the image quality is pretty much identical to the 135L in my opinion. I just sold mine to raise funds for a 5D but I'm fairly certain I will own one again.

How's the quality compared to the 70-200 2.8L? Any photos of them side by side? Is it much lighter? Bh has it at 1.6 lb vs 2.8. I bought the 70-200 F4L for weight, but I'de love a chance at 2.8 at the longer range for shooting some indoor sports (focal length could be too long though, who knows), or atleast other stuff outside at say night.

This file is a JPG straight from the camera with the 200mm f2.8L. The only processing is the blurred areas (POTN is family friendly).

Mark

HOSTED PHOTO
please log in to view hosted photos in full size.

I have a few HS football shots.

The first 2 were with Tamron 1.4x

HTTP response: 404 | MIME changed to 'text/html' | Byte size: ZERO

HTTP response: 404 | MIME changed to 'text/html' | Byte size: ZERO

HTTP response: 404 | MIME changed to 'text/html' | Byte size: ZERO

I wonder if this lens could possibly be used for indoor high school sports on a crop body. I hear the 85 is the lens of choice for that, so I have one coming, but just curious, especially if you can't be on the sidelines for a game or something, but instead are in the stands.

4x4 are these at night or day time
I am guessing night since its 1600 Iso and 250th of a second

Or posibly number one daytime number two pretwilight and number three nighttime

Bradt0517, the first 2 are in the very very late afternoon. There's a little light left and was fading fast.

The last one is at night with flash.